Over the course of the season, Snell made some minor strides towards the better. He fixed a glaring weakness in terms of efficiency, going from a TS% of .489 last year (considerably below league average) to .550 this year, which is actually above league average. The reason for that? A hot-as-hell February in which he dropped 13.6 points a night on a ridiculous Kyle Korver-esque TS% of .747 over nine games. Included in that was a 24-for-46 showing from downtown, obviously an anomaly, which just makes his situation so terribly difficult to really pin down. Do we look at the big picture and go "Well, without February, he really wasn't all that good" - or, the more positive spin "Look at that February! If he can just dig into that bag more often..."?
The correct answer lies somewhere in the middle. Snell shouldn't be necessarily penalized for his February since, after all, he did put up those numbers, anomaly or not. But it shouldn't be the foundation of which anyone build their new expectations in regards to Snell.
At the end of the day, Snell had some success which was drastically necessary for him, and this should be the basis of which he should be judged. He got more confidence in his long-ball, there were moments when he looked visibly comfortable with the rock, which was in way the situation the season prior, and he was better off as a result of that. Just slightly, but that's okay.
Much like with his offense, Snell's defense was either hot or cold. With the Bulls generally defending worse this season, Snell was stuck in the very middle of it, spending time with everyone from the starters and the primary back-up rotation, to playing clean-up duty. He played generally worse as a starter, proving himself too think to take on stronger wings, but was adequate off the bench when matched up against players of lesser skill and strength.
Against the three-pointer, Snell was struggling making it out the shooter if he tried to recover from double-teams, or simply picking up a switch. This resulted in Snell allowing players to shoot 3.9% better than their average from behind the arc. Surprisingly, Snell helped lower the shooting percentages of players closer to the rim, as he affected their shots by 3.5% from within six feet. But that was primarily his one defensive asset, as he, in totality, allowed almost 3% better shooting on the perimeter, and outside 15 feet. This is such a crucial area to be effective in, and Snell just wasn't.
"Brought it factor"
Snell brought it in February, and then stood by somewhat outside of that. The passiveness of Snell has frequently been a problem, and while he had some moments this season in which he took some steps in that department, he's still far off as being considered someone who's bringing it.
Highlight of the season
Had he not gone cold in April, suggesting even more so than usual that he's a Dee Brown type player (the 90's version, not the Illinois version) who is either fantastically cold or fantastically hot, I'd given him a solid C+ and a tip of the hat. But that didn't happen, so he needs to settle for a grade that he should be able to beat next year.
Filed under: Uncategorized